Can Admission To Accident Victim Be Delayed For Legal Formalities ?
PARMANAND KATARA V. UNION OF INDIA: A BRIEF ANALYSIS
Accidents have been a major concern across the globe. And road accidents in particular hinders GDP of a country the most. And, India on top of that, is the country with most fatalities yet does not account for most number of road accidents. And fatalities have been increasing every year.
Table of Contents:
- Road Accidents in India
- Percentage of Accident in India and Worldwide
- Major Cause of Accident Fatalities
- Facts of Parmanand Katara vs Union of India & Ors.
- Issue before Court in Parmanand Katara vs Union of India & Ors.
- Court Observation
- Held by Supreme Court
- Conclusion
Road Accidents in India
A statistics from ministry of road, transport and highways shows that in 2005, per 1000 road accidents, 94.47 were victims of such accidents and had lost their lives. While that number was increasing every year, in 2019 for every 1000 accidents, 151.11 people lost their lives.
Percentage of Accident in India and Worldwide
And the fun fact is that India while accounts of 1% of total motor vehicles in the world, it accounts for 6% of total road fatalities in the world. And that’s not all. Every year, Government of India spend around 3 to 5% to GDP on maintenance of roads, yet these are numbers are increasing at a rapid rate. Another statistics from Ministry from Road, Transport and Highways shows that around 70% of accidents involves young Indians.
Major Cause of Accident Fatalities
And the major cause for these accidents turning into fatalities are denial of admission to the patient by the hospitals. It was seen that hospitals refusing hospitalization on account of medico-legal cases was becoming a trend.
Facts of Parmanand Katara vs Union of India & Ors.
Therefore, Supreme Court came up with its landmark decision in the case of Parmanand Katara v. Union of India & Ors., wherein it enlarged the scope of medical emergency in India.
The facts of the case are that due to increasing road accidents and refusal of hospitals to admit them on account of medico legal case, petitioner, who was a human rights activist filed a Public Interest Litigation on the basis of a newspaper report, whose headline was death of an adult male who was travelling via scooter and was hit hard by a speeding car. The question does not arise here. The injured person was taken to the nearest hospital, where he was denied admission on the basis that they were not authorized to handle medico-legal cases and that he should be taken to nearest hospital allowed to handle medico-legal cases, which was 20 kilometers away.
The injured person dies on the way, while he was being taken to the hospital 20 kilometers away.
Issue before Court in Parmanand Katara vs Union of India & Ors.
The major issue before the Supreme Court whether a victim of road accident can be allowed admission to the nearest hospital for first aid treatment, without following all the legal formalities?
Court Observation
Supreme Court observed that Clause 12 and Clause 13 of the Code of Medical Ethics, 1970 imposes duty on the doctors and medical practitioners, to treat and serve the injured, to the best of their ability without rescuing themselves from performing their professional duty.
Supreme Court while going into deep interpretation of Clause 13 observed that willful negligence by medical professionals is strictly barred by this clause. It was further observed that these medical practitioners have to establish same degree of care and skills while dealing with cases of emergency, as that of normal cases. It was further stated that the Code of Medical Council proposes some expectations from these medical professionals, which they cannot forgo.
Another important observation made by Supreme Court was pertaining to criminal cods such as Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Penal Code and Motor Vehicle Act, which clearly did not restrict medical professionals from performing their duties of providing medical treatment without completing formalities.
Held by Supreme Court
Holding that human life is unarguably much more valuable than prioritizing the legal formalities first. Thus, to ensure the same, Supreme Court held that:
- Article 21 of the Constitution casts duty on the state to preserve and protect lives at all costs;
- Supreme Court held that once a life is lost, it cannot be preserved back. Thus, human life becomes of utmost importance. Thus, every doctor whether of Government or private hospital, has a duty cast upon them to preserve and protect life without being imposed oflegal formalities;
- Supreme Court further held that law does not hold back medical practitioners from performing their duties, when they are being required to do so. It further held that it is not only the duty of medical practitioners but also the duty of police and every other citizen to make sure that the injured receives the first aid and the necessary treatment it requires in order to save life;
- Another important observation was that whether the person is innocent or guilty, the primary duty of the medical practitioners are that they must save injured person’s life, so that they can be tried by law accordingly;
Observing these, Supreme Court held that no law or state’s action can avoid or even delay the utmost duty being cast upon the medical practitioners. The obligation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of procedure whether in statute or otherwise which would interfere with the discharge of this obligation cannot be sustained and must, therefore, give way.
CONCLUSION
Parmanand Katara’s case is one of the best outcome of PIL, being the guiding factor towards saving lives of road accident victims.